Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Back to the Battler's Beatrice and Yasu's Beatrice discussion, it actually makes me wonder how that works. We were indeed told the reason Beatrice died in EP5 was because she had lost the will to keep playing. Featherine told us that reviving that Beatrice is impossible. However, reviving Beatrice seemed to be the main theme in EP6.

The whole deal about how people can change depending on their experiences is talked to in great detail in EP6 (with chick-Beato as an example) and in EP7 (with the parallel stories of Yasu and Lyon).

If I were to draw a parallel between what we saw about chick-Beato in EP6 and Yasu's stories in EP7, both of them were created to love Battler. We're also told the Golden Witch (i.e. the complete Beatrice) depends on several factors other than love towards Battler - amongst these things are the rumours in Rokkenjima, the Epitaph, etc... Beato's flashback in EP6 connects perfectly well with what we saw in EP7. Beatrice was created because Shannon/Yasu couldn't bear with having to wait for Battler.

I'm still wondering why the deal about how people's personalities are moulded according to their experiences has been brought up as something crucial. Sure, there's Lyon, but no matter what happens, the life Yasu has lead won't change. So, in that regard, Beatrice couldn't have died, unless Yasu has completely given up on Battler, to the point nothing will make her like him again. However, if Battler can do something about that, then I'd find Featherine's Red about not being able to revive Beatrice completely pointless.

__________________

"The name is Tin; Used is just an alias. I'm everything Shoe Box would like to be." - Used Can of the Aluminium Kingdom

Back to the Battler's Beatrice and Yasu's Beatrice discussion, it actually makes me wonder how that works. We were indeed told the reason Beatrice died in EP5 was because she had lost the will to keep playing. Featherine told us that reviving that Beatrice is impossible. However, reviving Beatrice seemed to be the main theme in EP6.

The whole deal about how people can change depending on their experiences is talked to in great detail in EP6 (with chick-Beato as an example) and in EP7 (with the parallel stories of Yasu and Lyon).

If I were to draw a parallel between what we saw about chick-Beato in EP6 and Yasu's stories in EP7, both of them were created to love Battler. We're also told the Golden Witch (i.e. the complete Beatrice) depends on several factors other than love towards Battler - amongst these things are the rumours in Rokkenjima, the Epitaph, etc... Beato's flashback in EP6 connects perfectly well with what we saw in EP7. Beatrice was created because Shannon/Yasu couldn't bear with having to wait for Battler.

I'm still wondering why the deal about how people's personalities are moulded according to their experiences has been brought up as something crucial. Sure, there's Lyon, but no matter what happens, the life Yasu has lead won't change. So, in that regard, Beatrice couldn't have died, unless Yasu has completely given up on Battler, to the point nothing will make her like him again. However, if Battler can do something about that, then I'd find Featherine's Red about not being able to revive Beatrice completely pointless.

The definition of "Revival" has always been murky at best, actually.

Chick-Beato regains the memories of Yasu-Beato in Episode 6, near the end. Independently of Battler, but also for the sake of rescuing him and understanding herself.

So rather than a "revival", more like a "reincarnation"? In understanding and grasping the true nature/purpose of her own existence, Beatrice is able to complete herself once more? In that case, while it's true that "That Beatrice can not be resurrected", it's more like she...fixed herself?

I understand that the connotation of a revival is someone bringing another back from the dead, so in that case, as it was Chick-Beato that came back to her full self under her own volition, it'd be a self-reincarnation, which is something done independently, I believe.

I may just be grasping at straws here, however. So if we put this in perspective of Yasutrice, then that would mean that...Yasu would have fallen in love with Battler again? Or decided to pin her hopes on him again, now that he needed her most?

Either way, the central trait of Yasu-Beato is "Loving Battler", right? Therefore, in order for Yasu-Beato to exist, requires that Yasu be in love with Battler, or else it's simply not the same thing.

So if the death of Beato in Episode 5 is due to the death of those feelings. Then Beatrice's revival would be to those feelings of love being rekindled? In that sense, Beatrice would be the "love Yasu has for Battler from 6 years ago". And Beato's revival at the end of Episode 6 is "The love Yasu has for Battler right now". Including the feelings from six years ago.

I understand that both points Ive made in this post are mostly unrelated...But I put a lot more store in the latter point.

Beatrice is Yasu's love for Battler. Chick Beato is an echo of that, and Yasu's love for Battler would have been revived in full at the end of Episode 6, hence the memories and personality returning.

Which would make Rudolf 25 at the time of the revival of Western occurs with the so called "spaghetti westerns", which start with 1964 Italian release of A Fistful of Dollars. He's barely the right age to be part of the "Western film loving generation" if he's born in 1948.

Sorry, no matter how you twist it, something has to be a lie.

Why Rudolf needs to be a fan of the spaghetti western in particular? Western movies existed a lot earlier and they probably arrived with some delay to Japan. I always assumed that Rudolf was part of that generation and not the one that grew up at the time of the spaghetti western.

Even if some of the spaghetti western are considered among the best western movies ever produced, they came when the genre was already dying.

BTW what it's said is that Rudolf only possesses a shotgun with a similar mechanism of those winchester, he doesn't actually possess the very same thing. This makes sense considering it would be illegal and he would have a lot of a harder time playing with it while living in tokyo.

Why Rudolf needs to be a fan of the spaghetti western in particular? Western movies existed a lot earlier and they probably arrived with some delay to Japan. I always assumed that Rudolf was part of that generation and not the one that grew up at the time of the spaghetti western.

Western genre had multiple extra-high worldwide peaks which would form a "generation" - silent movie era, 1939-1942 (look up Stagecoach) and 1964-1970 in particular (spaghetti era) are prominent, but the 50s had their share of high profile Westerns, which do have theatrical release dates for Japan at most the next year after the US release. It's hard to say if they were popular enough to form the "western loving generation" in Japan or not, even if in the US they apparently didn't, so I guess I'll have to drop Rudolf's age in particular out of this equation, as we can't really conclusively date him based on that. (I would think Gojira would be more popular at the time, but it's bloody hard to tell.)

But looking up the westerns produced an even more interesting question. A sawed-off lever action rifle is a very distinctive weapon, and it originates with a very specific character.

Now, that raises eyebrows.

It comes from a CBS TV series. This is well before the era of home video or satellite broadcasts -- or even a movie release, which was 1987. How exactly did Kinzo know it was cool?

What exactly was Kinzo doing during the 60s anyway? Testimony shows him obsessed with magic at the time, rather extremely obscure (in Japan) US TV series.

For that matter, how did Ryukishi know about it? I could not find any evidence it was ever aired in Japan, and there was no Japanese DVD release either.

__________________

"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
 Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

I guess no one really wanted to believe that the stakes were just cheap paperweights. I guess you would say "how could everyone seriously believe that those junk were weapons?"
But guess what, they are worthless junk.

Despite all of his money it appears that Kinzo doesn't care too much about the actual value of the stuff he buys from america. A man like him could have gotten some real occult tools, but he was satisfied with those cheap paperweights.

So would it be that surprising if the four winchester were actually just toy replicas?

So would it be that surprising if the four winchester were actually just toy replicas?

Would Rudolf not notice, if we're to buy the Ep7 revelation that he actually owns a real lever action gun, whether it's a legal shotgun or not? And what was everyone with obvious bullet holes shot with? Stake launcher?

EDIT: For a moment I thought that them being toy guns would explain why there's four of them. Toys for the four siblings. Then I realised that it can't be earlier than 1958, which makes the time window when all four siblings could have been expected to play together with toy guns very, very short, if not zero...

__________________

"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
 Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

BTW about Rudolf, I just realized that Japan most certainly didn't receive any movie from USA from 1939 to 1945, however as soon as it surrendered it must have been literally flooded with made in USA products, including all the movies it didn't get until that point.

Quote:

EDIT: For a moment I thought that them being toy guns would explain why there's four of them. Toys for the four siblings. Then I realised that it can't be earlier than 1958, which makes the time window when all four siblings could have been expected to play together with toy guns very, very short, if not zero...

Toys for the four cousins. Alternately Kinzo used to play survival games with Genji, Nanjo and Kumasawa, he owned a whole forest to use as a battlefield!
Okay seriously I have no clue why he wanted four of them.

BTW about Rudolf, I just realized that Japan most certainly didn't receive any movie from USA from 1939 to 1945, however as soon as it surrendered it must have been literally flooded with made in USA products, including all the movies it didn't get until that point.

But then so was Bernkastel's Kyrie Rampage story. Can't be done with toy guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

BTW about Rudolf, I just realized that Japan most certainly didn't receive any movie from USA from 1939 to 1945, however as soon as it surrendered it must have been literally flooded with made in USA products, including all the movies it didn't get until that point.

That is certainly true, but that was the Akira Kurosawa era -- he started in 1943, made his most famous films during the 50s, and US film industry has been impressed ever since. Japan had it's most influential native films made during this period. Much of it samurai drama.

__________________

"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
 Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

I have a small question. For people who believe that the EP7 tea party was just some well made story from Bernkastel, what does it say about that incomplete red truth Bern was going to say?

The "This is all true!" one? If we subscribe to the dominant theory that red is confined to the boundaries of a single game unless it is sufficiently generic or specifically says it is not, it should be obvious that no matter how much of a hand Bernkastel had in writing that story, it can be "true" within the boundaries of that one game, but that says nothing about it being the truth of Rokkenjima-Prime, nor it prevents it having a divergence point not on the morning of the 4th like all of the other stories seem to, but much earlier, like 19 years in the past.

__________________

"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
 Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

I have a small question. For people who believe that the EP7 tea party was just some well made story from Bernkastel, what does it say about that incomplete red truth Bern was going to say?

Can counter with the "only Red used by Beatrice counts for Rokkenjima-prime while other reds only apply to the game board"(after all, Beatrice did say that "When I say the truth I will use red) or even "didn't finish. Doesn't count."

Can counter with the "only Red used by Beatrice counts for Rokkenjima-prime while other reds only apply to the game board"(after all, Beatrice did say that "When I say the truth I will use red) or even "didn't finish. Doesn't count."

Actually, we don't even have to go that far, we can just outright claim that since this is Bernkastel's game, it's entirely divergent from the other games up until this point. Or at least an entirely new gameboard constructed by Bernkastel for the sake of trolling Ange for the amusement of Featherine and herself.